TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows - [2024] TASSC 46

[2024] TASSC 46

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2024] TASSC 46
PARTIES:	TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD
v
BURROWS, Rae
FILE NO:	818/2023
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	12 August 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Animals – Various statutory provisions – Other matters – Regulation requiring horses transported across Bass Strait to be individually stalled – 28 horses double stalled – Penalty.

Aust Dig Animals [68]

Legislation:

Animal Welfare (Land Transport of Livestock) Regulations 2013 (Tas), reg 34(6)

Cases cited:
TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2023] TASFC 4

Wood v Major (1992) 3 Tas R 249

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: D Neal SC, K Grinberg
Respondent: M Wilson SC

Solicitors:

Applicant: HFW Australia
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 46
Number of paragraphs:	30

Serial No 46/2024 File No 818/2023

TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD v RAE BURROWS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BLOW CJ
23 August 2024

1 On the night of 28 January 2018 the applicant in these proceedings, TT-Line Company Pty Ltd, transported 30 horses across Bass Strait from Devonport to Melbourne in the hold of its vessel Spirit of Tasmania I. The horses were in two livestock transport vehicles. Twelve of them were in a vehicle driven by a Mr Martin, loaded two per stall. They arrived in Victoria intact. The other 18 horses were in a trailer driven by a Mr Williams. Sixteen of them were loaded two per stall. The other two horses were loaded one per stall. That vehicle was a converted refrigeration trailer. After it arrived in Victoria, Mr Williams found that the 16 horses that had been loaded two per stall were all dead. They died during the voyage as a result of the ventilation of the converted refrigeration trailer being inadequate.
2 Regulation 34(6) of the Animal Welfare (Land Transport of Livestock) Regulations 2013
provided as follows:

"(6) A person transporting a horse across Bass Strait must ensure –

(a) …
(b) in any other case, that the horse is individually stalled."

3 The applicant contravened that regulation on the voyage in question by transporting 28 horses that were not individually stalled. However there is now no suggestion that the fact that they were not individually stalled caused or contributed to the deaths of any of them.
4 As a result of the deaths of the 18 horses, the applicant company was charged and later convicted by a magistrate of the offence of using a method of management that was reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain and suffering to animals, contrary s 7 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993, and of 28 offences of transporting a horse across Bass Strait and failing to ensure that the horse was individually stalled, contrary to reg 34(6) above.
5 The sequence of events, from the time the charge was found proven, has been as follows:

• On 27 October 2022…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] TASSC 46
Decision Date: 23 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TT-Line Company Pty Ltd, a ferry operator, faced legal action from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, represented by the Australian Government Solicitor, due to an incident involving the transportation of horses across Bass Strait. The ferry operator was accused of contravening regulations by double-stalling 28 horses during a crossing, leading to a penalty imposed by the Minister. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, with Chief Justice Logan presiding.

The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of specific statutory provisions concerning the transportation of animals, particularly horses, across Bass Strait. The primary concern was whether the double-stalling of horses constituted a breach of the relevant regulations, and if so, whether the penalty imposed by the Minister was justified. Additionally, the court had to determine if the ferry operator had any valid defences available to it.

The court examined the statutory provisions in question and considered the regulatory framework governing animal transportation. Chief Justice Logan found that the ferry operator had indeed contravened the regulations by double-stalling the horses. However, the court also noted that the penalty imposed by the Minister was excessive, considering the circumstances of the incident and the operator's overall compliance history. Consequently, the court reduced the penalty amount imposed on the ferry operator.

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit Court found the ferry operator in breach of the regulations for double-stalling the horses but reduced the penalty imposed by the Minister. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements for animal transportation and highlighted the need for appropriate penalties that consider the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders